Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	child_n	commandment_n	parent_n	3,515	5	9.0367	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69753	The generall demands, of the reverend doctors of divinitie, and ministers of the Gospell in Aberdene, concerning the late covenant, in Scotland together, with the answeres, replyes, and duplyes that followed thereupon, in the year, 1638 : reprinted in one book, by order of Parliament.	Forbes, John, 1593-1648.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1663 (1663)	Wing C4226; Wing C4225; ESTC R6298	125,063	170

Nations baptizing them In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost tye not Parents to seek Baptism to their Children and Pastors to administer when it is sought then have we no commandement at all for baptizing of Infants which is an Anabaptisticall absurdity But if Parents and Pastors are tyed by this Commandement then Parents ought to seek Baptism to their dying Children not baptized before for then or never and Pastors must accordingly performe that duety then which is incumbent upon them This is that which KING Iames of blessed memory in a conference at Hampton-court Pag. 17 reporteth himself to have answered to a Scotish Minister while he was in Scotland The Minister asked If he thought Baptism so necessarie that if it be omitted the child should be damned No said the KING but if you being called to baptize the child though privatlie should refuse to come I think you should be damned 59. Ye say to avoide the strength of this Argument that the necessity of the commandement standeth onely for Baptism in publick and that no precept requireth Baptism but when it can be had orderly with all the circumstances thereof whereof ye say this is one that it be administred in the presence of that visible Kirk wherof the Children are to be members Thus first ye condemne as unlawfull the administration of Baptism even in the Church God-fathers and God-mothers being present if the whole Congregation be not present there and the like doctrine we find in others also cited on the Margin which soundeth so harshly in the ears of some of your own adherents that they can not be perswaded that this is your doctrine Secondly the Commandement of CHRIST tying us to Baptisme hath no such addition either of the presence of the Congregation or yet of the materiall Kirk This belongeth but to the solemnity and not to the necessary lawfull use of Baptisme Where GOD hath tyed this solemnity to Baptism ye can not show by holy Scripture but where GOD hath tyed us to Baptism we have already shown It is true solemnities should not be lightly omitted but the Law sayeth When evident equity requireth they may be dispensed withe for according to that same Law That which is chief and principall should not be ruled by that which is accessory but contrariwise As for the place of Baptism we may say of it as Tertullian sayeth of the time thereof in the 19 chapter of his Book of Baptism Every day is the LORDS every houre day and time is fit for Baptism it may want of the solemnity but nothing of the grace Neither is such a number as ye require to be present necessary in this case Our Saviour hath taught us Matth. 18. 19. That if two shall agree on Earth as touching any thing that they shall aske it shall be done for them of his Father which is in Heaven For sayeth he where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We beseech you therefore Brethren to take heed that ye prescribe not to mens consciences Rites of necessity without clear warrand from GODS word by which ye will never be able to prove the necessity of this circumstance required by you in Baptism 60. The practise of the primitive Church both in the Apostles times and thereafter agreeth with this doctrine and practise of ours Sainct Philip baptised the Eunuch on the way Acts 8. Anantas baptized Saul in a private house Acts 9. Sainct Paul baptized the Jaylour in his house Acts 16. If ye answere as others doe that the necessity of the infancy of the Church excused the want of the presence of a Congregation we reply that the same necessity is found in the cases whereof we speak for as unpossible it is for a dying insant who about mid-night is at the last gaspe to enjoy the presence of the congregation as it was impossible for any of the afore mentioned the Eunuch Saul or the Iailor to have had a Congregation present at their Baptism yea more impossible and why should there not be the same effect where there is the same reason 61. The practise of the ancient Church in this is also clear for us This is manifest from the 76 Epistle of S. Cyprian from the Oration of Gregorie Nyssen against them who delayed their Baptism from S. Basill in his 13 Homilie which is an exhortation to Baptism Tom. 1. from Gregorie Nazianzen in his 40. Oration whose words we have cited upon the margine Hence although two fet times were appointed for solemn Baptism yet the case of necessity was ever excepted This is clear by the foresaid Testimonies as also by these following Sir c●us Epist. 1. cap. 2. Tom. 1. Concil Gelas. Epist. 9. ad Episcopos Lucani● Tom. 2. Concil Conc. Antisiodor cap. 18. Tom. 2. Conc. Matiscon 2. cap. 3. Tom. 2. Concil Conc. Meldens cap. 48. Conc. Triburiens cap. 12. Concil in Palatio Vernis cap. 7. Conc. Wormatiens cap. 1. Tom. 3. Concil The learned Causabon in his 16 exercitation cōsidering all this sayeth Woe to them that in the administration of this Sacrament deny their duety to dying Infants under pretence of I know not what Discipline To this same purpose the learned Martin Bucer in the 15 Chapter of his censure of the English Liturgie considering Baptism of sick Infants privatly sayeth In this Constitution all things are hol●ly set down This same practise also is allowed by Doctor Whitaker in his Book against Reynolds Pag. 48. 62. The Congregation say ye whereof the child is to be a member hath interest in this and therefore ought to be present no lesse then at excommunication whereby a rotten member is cut off In this case of necessity there is no prejudice either to the child or to the congregation thorow the want of the congregations presence for there is no neglect nor contempt of the congregation in this case or of any of the members thereof and the child by Baptism though privatly administred is ingrafted into CHRIST and so being joined to the head of the Church becommeth also united unto the Church which is his body If excommunication require the presence of the whole congregation because the power of binding and loosing is delyvered by CHRIST to every particular Church or congregation collectively taken as it is affirmed in the Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies Part. 3. Cap. 8. Pag. 182. then it is not alike with Baptism the power whereof is committed to the Pastors of the Church Matth. 28. But although that ground be not true as we think it is not yet excōmunication is done in presence of the People For this censure may not be inflicted but onely for publick offences and therefore must be publick as the offence is That others also may fear 1 Tim. 5. 20. and have no company with the delinquent that he may be ashamed 2. Thess. 3. 14. and so your

taken to injure or offend any man by denying to him that which is due to him and therefore we ought not for eschewing scandall causelesly taken to offend and injure our superioures in Church and Policy by denying to them that obedience which is due to them The antecedent is clear by many examples For if a man be excommunicated shall his Wife Children and servants slee his company and so deny to him these dueties which they ow to him for fear that others be scandalized by their keeping of company with an excommunicate Person And if they may not for eschewing of scandall abstaine from these dueties which they ow to a private person much lesse may we abstaine from that obedience which we ow to our superioures having publicke charges in Church and Policy for eschewing of scandalls causelesly taken by others 40. Fiftly what if the thing commanded be enjoined by the civill Magistrate under paine of death and by Ecclesiasticall Authority under paine of excommunication shall we for fear of a scandall causelesly taken which may be removed by information or for the scandall of the malicious who will not be informed at all abstaine from the doing of a thing lawfull and expedient enjoined by Authority and by so doing incurre these most grievous punishments of Death temporall and spirituall We believe that your selves who speak most of scandall would be loath to take such a yoke upon you 41. Sixtly The denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our superioures is forbidden in the fift Commandement and consequently it is a sin Shall we then for a scandall causelesly taken deny obedience to our superioures and so incurre the guiltinesse of sin Ye commonly answere to this that the negative part of the fift Commandement which forbideth the resisting of the power Rom. 13. verse 2. and in generall the denying of obedience to superioures is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For if we see say ye that any may or will take offence at the doing of that which is cōmanded by our superioures we are not holden to obey them and our denying of obedience to them in such a case is not forbidden in that Commandement 42. But first we aske what warrand ye have to say that the negative part of the fift Commandement is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall more then other negative precepts of the second Table Secondly As men may take offence either through weaknesse or malice at our doing of the thing commanded so they are most ready to stumble at our denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our superioures for they will take occasion by our carriage to doe that unto which by nature they are most enclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and the Authority of their superioures Shall we then for the eschewing of a scandall causelesly taken not only refuse to our superioures the duety of obedience which they crave of us but also incurre an other scandall and that a farre more perilous one Thirdly we have already shown that the negative part of the fift Commandement is not all wayes to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall causelesly taken For Wives Children and Servants must not deny obedience and familiar conversation to their Husbands Parents and Masters which are excommunicated for fear that others through weaknesse or malice be scandalized thereat Fourthly As ye say that the precept concerning obedience to superioures is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall causelesly taken so we with farre better reason say that the precept of eschewing scandall causelesly taken is to be understood with the exception of the case of obedience peremptorly required by our lawfull superioures as we shall show in our next Argument Whether the Precept of Obedience to Superioures or the Precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatory 43. Last of all when a man is peremptorly urged by his superioures to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the mean time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weakness shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not only in a difficulty or strait betwixt the commandement of Man and the Commandement of GOD who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weak Brother may be offended but also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two of GODS Commandements to wit betwixt that precept which forbiddeth the doing of any thing whereby the weake may be scandalized and that other precept which forbiddeth the resisting of Authority and telleth us that whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of GOD. Now seeing GODS Precepts are not repugnant one to another neither doeth GOD by his Lawes lay upon us a necessity of sinning out of all question in this case we are fred from the obligation of one of these precepts and that which doeth not so strictly tye us or is lesse obligatory must needs give place to the other which is of greater obligation Ye commonly say that the precept of obedience to humane Authority must give place to the precept of eschewing scandall although it be causelesly taken And to confirme your Assertion ye say that the ordinance of a superiour can not make that fact to be free of scandall which otherwise would be scandalous and that a fact upon which any scandall followeth ought not to be done for the commandement of Man Whence ye collect that in such a case we ought not to regard or obey the Commandement of our Superiours 44. This your Reason can not be good because we can easily retort the Argument and say to you that in such a case we ought not to regard the scandall causelesly taken by our weak Brethren so far as to deny simplie and absolutely Obedience to our Superiours for it and that because the sin of Disobedience ought to be eschewed and no Scandall of weak brethren causelesly taken can make that fact not to be the sin of disobedience which otherwise that is extra casum scandali would bee the sin of disobedience For it is certain that laying aside the case of scandall to deny obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours enjoining and peremptorly requiring of us things lawfull and expedient is really the sin of disobedience Ye will say that the scandall of weak brethren may make that Fact or Omission not to be disobedience which otherwise would be disobedience because we ought not for the Commandement of man doe that whereby our weak brother may be offended and so the precept of obedience bindeth not when offence of a weak brother may be feared On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would be imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltinesse because we ought not for fear of scandal causelesly taken deny obedience to the lawfull

superioures Parents in the fift Commandement 49. But we with good warrand doe averre that the precept which forbiddeth resisting of the Civil power and in generall the denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our Superiours is of greater obligation and moment And first we prove this by an Argument taken from the diverse degrees of that care which we ought to have of the Salvation of others for this care tyeth us to three things to wit first to the doing of that which may be edificative and may give a good example to all Secondly to the eschewing of that which may be scandalous or an evill example to all that is to the eschewing of every thing which is either sin or hath a manifest show of sin Thirdly to abstain even from that which although it be lawfull yet it may be to some particular persons an occasion of sin Of these the first two are most to be regarded in respect they concern the good of all which is to be preferred to the good of particular persons Hence we inferre that the precept of obedience to Superiours which prescriveth an Act edificative to all because it is an exercise of a most eminent and necessary vertue is more obligatory and of greater moment then the precept of eschewing scandall causelesly taken by some particular persons 50. Secondly That the precept of obedience to our superiours is of greater moment consequently more obligatory then the precept of eschewing scandal is evident by these reasons which are brought by our Divines to show wherefore the fifth Commandement hath the first place in the second Table to wit first because it cōmeth nearest to the nature of Religion or Piety commanded in the first Table whence as your own Amesius noteth in his Medulla Lib. 2. Cap. 17. § 13. the honouring and obeying of Parents is called by prophane Authors Religion and Piety Secondly This precept is the ground and sinewe sayeth Pareus in his Catechetick explication of the fift precept of the obedience which is to be givē to al the rest of the precepts of the second Table Two reasons are cōmonly brought of this one is that all Societies oeconomick Civill and Ecclesiasticall doe consist and are conserved by the submission or subjection of Inferiours to Superiours which being removed confusion necessarily followeth The other is that the obedience of this precept maketh way to the obediēce of all the rest For our superiours are set over us to the end that they may make us to doe our duety to all others And consequently our obedience to them is a mean instituted by GOD to procure our obedience to all the rest of the Precepts of the second Table Now would ye know what followeth out of this let your own Amesius whose words are more gracious unto you then ours tell you it Seeing sayeth he Cap. citato § 6. humane societie hath the place of a foundation or ground in respect of other dueties of Iustice and Charitie which are commanded in the second Table of the Law therfore these crimes which directly procure the perturbation confusion and eversion of it are more grievous then the violation of the singular Precepts Now we subsume the denying of obedience to Superiours enjoining such things as in themselves are lawfull and expedient directly procureth the perturbation and confusion of humane society And therefore it is a crime greater then the violation of other particular precepts of the second Table For this cause Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle ad Novatum cited before declaring how much the unity of the Church which is most frequently marred by the disobedience of Inferiours to their Superiours ought to be regarded sayeth that Martyrdom suffered for es●hewing of Schism● is more glorious then Martyrdom suffered for ●sch●wing Idolatrie 51. Thirdly These offices or dueties which we owe to others by way of Justice are more strickly obligatory then these which we owe to them onely by way of charity And consequently these precepts which prescrive dueties of justice are of greater obligation then these which prescrive dueties of charity onely But we owe the duety of obedience to our Superiours by way of Justice and therefore it is more obligatory then the duety of eschewing Scandall causelesly taken which is a duety onely of charity The Major or first proposition of this Argument is clear of it self as being a Maxime not onely received by the Scholasticks and Popish Casuists but also by our Divines See your own Amesius in his Medulla Lib. 2. Cap. 16. § 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. where he not onely proponeth this Maxime but also proveth it by two most evident examples The Minor is likewise clear For first the duety of obedience which we owe to the publick Lawes of the Church and Kingdom belongeth to that Generall Justice which is called Iustitia legalis For the legall Justice as it is in Inferiours or subjects it is a vertue inclining them to the obedience of all Lawes made for the benefite of the Common-wealth as Aristotle declareth in his fift book of the Ethicks Cap. 1. Secondly Debitum obedientiae the debt of obedience which we ow to our superioures is not only debitum morale a debt or duety unto which we are tyed by morall honesty and GODS Commandement but also debitum legale or debitum justitiae quod viz. fundatur in propriojure alterius a debt grounded upon the true and proper right which our superioures have to exact this duety of us so that they may accuse us of injury and censure us if we performe it not There is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of debt and the last is far more obligatory then the first As for example a man oweth moneys to the poor by a morall debt but to his creditor he oweth them by a legall debt or debt of justice and therefore he is more strictly obliedged to pay his creditor then to give almes Such-like by morall honesty and GODS precept also a man oweth to his neighbour a pious carefullnesse to impede sin in him by admonition instruction good example and by ommission even of things lawfull when he foreseeth that his neighbour in respect of his weaknesse will be scandalized by them But his neighbour hath not such a right to exact these things of him neither can he have action against him for not performing of them as our lawfull superioures have for our due obedience In what sense the administration of the Sacraments in private places was thought indifferent in Pearth Assembly 52. In our Reply we professed that we can not abstaine presently from private Baptisme and private communion being required t● administrate these Sacraments to such persons as can not come or be brought to the Church Hence first ye take occasion to object to us that the state of the question concerning Pearth Articles is quite altered in respect we and our associates did ever before alleadge the question to be of things indifferent but

Commandements of our Superiours 45. Again ye say that when scandall of weak brethren may be feared the precept of Obedience is not obligatory in respect the thing commanded by our Superiours although it be in it self lawfull yet it becometh unexpedient in respect of the Scandall which may follow upon it Now say ye the ordinances of our Superiours are not obligatory when the things commanded by them are unexpedient We on the contrary say that when our Superiours require of us obedience to their lawfull commandements the precept of eschewing scandall is not obligatory in respect we ought not for Scandall causelesly taken omit necessary dueties which GOD in His Law requireth of us In which number we most justly doe reckon The duety of Obedience which we owe to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours 46. As for that which ye say that when Scandall may be taken at the doing of the thing commanded then the thing commanded becommeth inexpedient and so ought not to be obeyed that ye be not more deceived by this errour we pray you marke that a thing comcomanded by our Superiours in Church or Policy may be two wayes inexpedient to wit either in respect of some particular Persons who through weaknesse or malice doe stumble at it or else in respect of the body in generall because it is contrary to Order Decency and Edification If the thing commanded be inexpedient the first way only we may indeed in such a case for eschewing the scandall of the weak forbear the practise of the thing commanded hîc nunc in some particular places and times providing alwise we doe this Without offence of our Superiours and without the scandal of others who by our forbearance may be made to vilipend the Authority of Lawes But we can not in such a case totally and absolutely deny obedience to a Law as we have already proven Neither is your Argument brought to the contrary valide in respect we ought more to look to the utilitie and benefite which the body of the Church may receive by the thing commanded and by our obedience to our Superioures then to the harme which some particular Persons may receive thereby 47. If the thing commanded be in our private judgement inexpedient the second way we ought not for that to deny obedience to the Lawes of the Church for when the inexpediency of a thing is questionable and probable Arguments may be brought pro and contrae concerning the expediencie of it we have sufficient warrand to practise it if the Church by her publick decree hath declared that she thinketh it expedient Your errour who are of the contrary minde is very dangerous and may prove most pernicious to the Church for it maketh the Church obnoxious to perpetuall Schisme and disconformity in matters of externall Policy in respect men ordinarily are divyded in judgement concerning the expediencie of these things Suppon then that in a Synode consisting of an hundreth Pastors threescore of them think this or that particular Ceremony to be expedient for the good of the Church and in respect of the plurality of their voices make an Act to be concluded for the establishing of it shall the remnant four●y who are of the contrary judgement deny obedience to the Act of the Synode because they are perswaded that the thing concluded is inexpedient and shal they by doing so rent the body of the Church Truely if we were all of your minde we should never have Peace nor Unity in this Church Ye will say perhaps that this our Argument is Popish and leadeth men to acquiesce without tryall or examination in the decrees of the Church We answere that in matters of faith the trueth whereof may be in●allibly concluded out of GODS word we ought not without tryall to acquiesce into the decrees of the Church And in this respect we dissent from the Papists who ascrive too much to the Authority of counsells as if their decrees were infallible But in matters of Policy if we be certaine that in their own nature they are indifferent and if the expediencie of them only be called in question seeing no certaine conclusion concerning their expediency can be infallibly drawn out of GODS word which hath not determined whether this or that particular Rite be agreable to order decency and edification we ought to acquiesoe into the decree or constitution of the Church although it be not of infallible Authority and that partly because it is impossible that otherwise we can agree in one conclusion concerning matters of this nature and partly because if we deny obedience to the decrees of the Church in such matters our disobedience shall prove far more unexpedient and hurtfull to the Church then our obedience can be 48. Seeing then whatsoever ye have hitherto said concerning the question proponed by us may be easily answered with a retortion of the Argument upon your selves that we may eschew all such Logomachie we must take some other course and try which of these two precepts is in it self of greater moment and obligation for thence we may collect which of these two precepts doeth obliedge us in the case foresaid the other giving place to it and not obliedging us at all in that case If ye say that the precept which forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weak Brother may be scandalized is in it selfe more obligatory or doeth more strictly ty us to the obedience of it as being of greater moment ye must bring a solide reason for you which we think ye will hardly find We know ye say that the precept concerning Scandall is more obligatory and of greater moment because it concerneth the losse of the soule of a Brother But this reason is not valide first in respect our Brother if he be scandalized by our obedience to our superioures sinneth not by our default who doe obey for our carriage in giving obedience is such as may rather edifie our Brother Secondly the precept which forbiddeth disobedience concerneth the losse both of our own soules and of the soules of others who may be entysed to that sin by our denying obedience to the lawfull commandements of our superioures Thirdly if that precept of eschewing scandall causelesly taken doe so strictly obliedge us when our superioures require obedience of us it may happen that a man shall be in an inextricable perplexity not knowing whether he shall obey or deny obedience to the cōmandements of his superioures in respect he may fear the scandall of the weak whether he obey or deny obedience For as we said before many are most ready to be scandalized by our denying obedience to our superioures in thinges lawfull and otherwise expedient and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be curbed and to have our liberty restrained by the lawes of our superioures For this cause as Calvin judiciously noteth Instit. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. § 35. GOD to allure us to the duety of obedience to our superioures called all